For starters, 3 good reasons against LEDs

OlympiaMay 21, 2013 

There are several reasons why the LED Street Light Replacement needs opposition, the first of which is safety of the people and the planet. The following quote is from a recent article in Scientific American: “LEDs do have a dark side. A study published in late 2010 in the journal Environmental Science and Technology found that LEDs contain lead, arsenic and a dozen other potentially dangerous substances,” says Oladele Ogunseitan, one of the researchers behind the study and chair of the University of California-Irvine’s Department of Population Health & Disease Prevention.

Crews dispatched to clean up car crashes or broken traffic lights (LEDs are used extensively for automotive and traffic lighting) should wear protective clothing and handle material as hazardous waste. LEDs are currently not considered toxic by law and can be disposed of in regular landfills.

Secondly, the cost is multi-millions in taxpayer money to replace our current working lights with LEDs. This is brushed off as minor cost, because the LED toxic bulbs last a bit longer before they need to be disposed.

Thirdly, esthetics. The current street lights have charm and warmth. LEDs have a harsh white light which looks cold and industrial. There are other issues, such as jobs. If the bulbs aren’t changed as often, that’s less involvement by a working person. Let’s start with these issues.

The Olympian is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service